A deal between the lieutenant governor and the head of a business lobbying group needn't be reported, a state panel says.

THE STAKES:

Why not err on the side of transparency?

The problem isn't that Lt. Gov. Robert Duffy bought a house, or that he paid a bit less for it than full market value, or even that he bought it from someone whose organization he might be in a position to help in his official capacity. The problem is the Joint Commission on Public Integrity's take on all this.

What is it about JCOPE that gives one the sense that it would rather err on the side of government officials and lobbyists rather than insist on the highest possible standards of transparency and integrity?

Who, in short, does JCOPE think it works for — the public, or the government and lobbying industry over which it is supposed to be a watchdog?

For all appearances, Mr. Duffy did nothing wrong in purchasing a home in May on Keuka Lake from Sandy Parker. He paid $527,000.

The selling price was $47,000 below the full market value set by local tax officials. Cuomo administration aides point out that, since there was no real estate agent involved, one could arguably deduct the standard 6 percent broker's fee, or about $34,000. By that reasoning, Mr. Duffy got a roughly $13,000 break. That's hardly a big deal.

So this is not, in an ethical sense, what you might call an arm's-length situation. Mr. Duffy is in a position to further the agenda of both the economic development council and the Rochester Business Alliance.

The problem here is that the home sale creates a financial relationship, however temporary, between a public official and a representative of organizations that seek help from the state. It isn't about how much money was involved, or whether it was innocent or nefarious. It's about the transparency that we expect in the dealings between people who serve in and do business with government. Such business relationships should be reported, a task that would fall, in this case, on Ms. Parker and the council. (Mr. Duffy must also put this on his ethics disclosure form, which he plans to do when he files next year, the administration says.)

But JCOPE doesn't see it that way. A reportable business relationship, it says, occurs when a lobbyist or client compensates a state official. Since Mr. Duffy paid Ms. Parker for the home, there's nothing to report.

JCOPE misses the obvious: that Mr. Duffy was also compensated. He got a more than a half-million-dollar house out of this, at a discount of more than the $1,000 threshold the state sets for reporting compensation.

Would it help to clarify the law on which JCOPE relies? Probably. But here was an opportunity for the commission to declare: When in doubt, report. Instead, JCOPE put out the word: When in doubt, blow it off.

A watchdog would have made the case for maximum transparency. Perhaps JCOPE prefers the more comfortable role of lapdog for those it presumably oversees.